City Council Minutes 2014 10 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes October 21, 2014 Page 16 of 24 parking lot. It waives land dedication fees, which at $16 per square foot equates to $271,854. He stated this $1,128, 854 equates to $16,000 per parking space, without accounting for TIF money, which could add up to an additional $1,428 per space. He felt the purchase of land should be its own ordinance and not a part of a larger document, with promises of rights and incentives for a development proposal, which has not been through the public review process. He did not feel this is a good deal for the citizens of Louisville, to be paying top dollar for parking that will not safely function for its purpose and which creates a contract requiring the City to perform, without creating any incentives or requirements for the developer to perform. He stated it creates parking in an area, which does not need it, for a development, which might not get built, or may sit vacant. He stated the City does not have the budget for this purchase and should be more conservative in spending money. He stated the parking can be provided by the developers. As a residential developer he noted there are requirements to provide parking spaces and commercial developers have the same requirements. He stated the parking is the responsibility of the developers. He suggested using the money to give incentives or benefits to developers and business owners to create additional parking in the downtown area. John Leary, 1116 LaFarge Avenue, Louisville, CO stated back in the 1980's parking was an issue. Council put in additional parking by the railroad tracks, purchased the lot on Pine Street and expanded the parking at the museum. He stated those spaces were too far away for the public, but the plan was proposed for employee parking. He noted it is a 2.5 minute walk from those spaces to City Hall. Bob Tofte, 1417 Courtesy Road, Louisville, CO asked Council to think how this property fits into the Highway 42 Revitalization Plan. He stressed this property is very important to the entrance to Louisville. He felt some of the requirements proposed by Mr. Tebo jeopardize the development. He stated the City should not agree to the three drive - thru's because it would jeopardize traffic in the area. Randy Caranci, 441 Elk Trail, Lafayette, CO opposed the purchase of the Tebo property. He noted the underpass may or may not happen or may be delayed. He stated there are a lot of conflicts between the first Presentation and the actual contract. In the Presentation Cannon Street is dedicated by Tebo, however it is not included in the contract. He stated his belief the DELO project was to purchase the property for Cannon Street and dedicate it to the City. He stated the gateway will provide a view of the backside of the businesses. He supported the redevelopment area, but stated the contract for the Tebo property had design flaws, which allows Tebo and DELO advantages other developers do not receive. He addressed language in the contract, which referred to hazardous conditions and noted there is lead on the property from the Rod and Gun Club site. He stated there was a reference of a two -long block walk from the property to downtown. He stated a two block walk is over the railroad tracks, which is illegal. To legally walk to downtown, it is an eight block walk, without sidewalks and walking along the shoulder of Highway 42 or on private property. He stated the Planning Director has said spending money for parking is not about special events, yet